[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-7557?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13205782#comment-13205782
]
Suresh Srinivas commented on HADOOP-7557:
-----------------------------------------
bq. Some engineers at Google have come to the conclusion that using required
does more harm than good; they prefer to use only optional and repeated.
However, this view is not universal." So (arguably) all or most fields should
be optional.
That is * some * engineers. In our protobuf we use both required and optional.
bq. Indeed. If Hadoop RPC is to be interoperable then it needs a
language-independent specification and multiple implementations. That
specification might specify its headers either as some protobuf messages or as
some RFC-like text.
Protobuf is my vote.
bq. But what's also required is a description of how to handle the various
values for these header fields, including the default. Until then, the
implementation is the specification.
This documentation can be made available in .proto files (as it done on
existing .proto files)
> Make IPC header be extensible
> -------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-7557
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-7557
> Project: Hadoop Common
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Sanjay Radia
> Assignee: Sanjay Radia
> Attachments: HADOOP-7557.patch, IpcHeader.proto, ipcHeader1.patch,
> ipcHeader2.patch
>
>
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
